political spending

03/15/2017

Inequality is inherent in the capitalist system, where those who are smarter or were born into the right family or work harder or take more risks can accumulate wealth and enjoy its benefits. This seems fair and most people accept that individuals who have greater responsibility or perform at higher levels or are more valuable to society should receive more compensation than their peers. Yet there are limits to how much inequality is reasonable in any society. This is particularly so if some of the acquisition of wealth is perceived to have been accomplished in an inappropriate, unethical, or immoral fashion, or due to luck.

Those who “make it” should be cognizant of those who do not, and be as generous and helpful as possible towards those who were not as ‘lucky.’ The wealthy tend to be more politically active in most countries than the working and middle classes, and fight to keep taxes low, perhaps contributing less than their fair share to maintain a nurturing environment for all citizens. They should fight instead to advance their nation and its population, and to provide the maximum opportunities for others to enjoy success.

An important consideration in reducing inequality is how much generational conveyance of wealth should be and can be curbed. If this is not addressed, an escalating percentage of the nation’s (and the world’s) assets will be possessed by a smaller number of families, which can be passed on indefinitely and employed to amass greater power. For democratic societies to flourish, equality of opportunity and meritocracy must be maintained, rather than control of the state and its institutions by inherited wealth.

As Thomas Piketty wrote- “no matter how justified inequalities of wealth may be initially, fortunes can grow and perpetuate themselves beyond all reasonable limits and beyond any possible rational justification in terms of social utility.” In the last quarter of the 20th century and the decades afterwards, inequality has soared within democratic societies that have followed neoliberal policies. Neoliberalism as an abstract ideal may read well on paper, but the power of the free market has to be balanced by rules and regulations protecting the poor and middle-classes and allow them to lead decent lives.

Over the last half-century, with marginal tax rates lowered, the magnitude of difference between rich and poor has become greater than ever. Financial rewards from the performance of the American economy have not been dispersed through every level of society. The most affluent have benefited excessively, with little in the way of higher earnings filtering down to the middle- and lower-income strata.

Interestingly, Americans have no concept of the degree of inequality in their society, believing there is a more equitable distribution of wealth than there actually is. A scientific study several years ago showed that Americans thought the top quintile owned 59 percent of the wealth when it was actually more than 84 percent and believed the bottom two quintiles owned 9 percent of the wealth when it was actually 0.3 percent. The Walton family alone had more wealth than 42 percent of American families. In spite of these statistics, the American dream remains alive: that intelligence and effort can result in upward mobility and people can reach the top through hard work.

The continued growth of inequality has accelerated since the recovery from the recession of 2007-2008. Globalization and the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs through automation have contributed greatly. As noted in the Harvard Business Review, the huge rise in economic inequality has been the result of technological changes and political decisions including financial market deregulation, free trade, tax code changes, and various other policy choices.

Another factor often overlooked in inequality has been assortive mating- the tendency for successful men and women to marry one another. Lawyers are more likely to marry other lawyers or other high-income professionals, as are physicians, business executives, and so forth. Thus, these families earn more and greater wealth is concentrated in their hands.

In the United States, the ultra-rich 0.01% of the populace was reported to have 11.1% of the nation’s wealth in 2014, with the top 1% having 39.8%, an astounding $32.6 trillion. These statistics do not consider assets in offshore accounts which would skew the percentages even further. The upper 1 percent earns nearly a quarter of the nation’s income annually. The richest 0.01% has quadrupled their share of America’s wealth since 1980, a time when they were already quite affluent. To a major degree, government policy which voters have allowed is responsible for the affluent being able to accumulate this immensely unequal share of assets, while the middle class stagnated financially and poverty appears to be intractable. A number of analysts believe income and wealth inequality in the U.S. is greater than in any nation in the developed world. Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has said that “America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way,” with globalization and technological advances designed to benefit the rich.

Stiglitz also believes that the degree of inequality in America has eroded trust in its institutions. And “trust is what makes contracts, plans and every day transactions possible; it facilitates the democratic process, from voting to law creation, and is necessary for social stability. It is essential for our lives. It is trust more than money that makes the world go round.” As inequality grows, the bonds of society are weakened, with citizens losing faith in a system “that’s seems inexorably stacked against them.” Stiglitz argues that the only way that trust will return is for government and its agencies to pass strong rules and regulations mandating proper behavior, with enforcement in the hands of tough and incorruptible regulators.

Many of the ultra-rich have achieved the status nobility were accorded in feudal societies, living in castles with servants and bodyguards, their every desire gratified. Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the 21st Century noted- “When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the 19th century and seems quite likely to do again in the 21st, capitalism generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. There are nevertheless ways democracy can regain control over capitalism and insure that the general interest takes precedence over private interests, while preserving economic openness and avoiding protectionist and nationalist reactions.”

Thus, one of the major objectives of democratic societies must be discovering how to lessen the concentration of wealth in only a few hands with continuous generational transfer, and achieving this end in a rational fashion. However, the likelihood of this occurring under the stewardship of President Trump and a Republican Congress is virtually nil. Whether it will ever happen depends on whether voters educate themselves as to their own interests and pressure their elected officials to truly work for them.

11/06/2016

Can America ever get back to being America again? Given the animus and hatred that has surfaced during this election campaign, this is not a frivolous question? The answer depends to a great degree on your previous vision of what America was and what your expectations are about what the future will bring when the election is over.

The anger and vituperation that we have seen every day on the Internet and television and heard on the radio over the last year did not just suddenly arise. It has been building for decades, constructed out of partisan lies and exaggerations believed by an uninformed electorate, whose civic and political knowledge comes from an echo chamber of sources, particularly talk radio and alternative media. But it has been magnified by the Trump campaign, willing to pursue victory by enhancing the nation’s divisions, demonizing opponents, and voicing conspiracy theories with no basis in fact. This has stoked his supporters’ fury against those who oppose their supposed savior in any way, and raises the possibility of violence if Trump loses the election.

According to mental health professionals, this election has produced more stress and anxiety than any recent past contests, likely because citizens view it and the candidates in such stark blacks and whites. Will the anger and stress just dissipate after the election is over? The anticipation and uncertainty will be gone, but whichever candidate wins, the White House will be occupied by a person that nearly half the country despises. How will this president get his or her opponents to accept his or her legitimacy and work with this person who has been declared the victor by our electoral system?

Since Bill Clinton’s presidency, the political rancor and partisanship between the parties (and their supporters) has been growing and is now overwhelming, the attempt to impeach Clinton perhaps the point of no return. However, George W. Bush’s justification for the war in Iraq and his failure to find weapons of mass destruction generated passionate antagonism among the opponents of the war and itself increased partisanship.

And Obama’s presidency has been marked by conservative hostility to him personally, with a large percentage of Republicans still unwilling to acknowledge his American heritage and Christianity, believing he is secretly a Muslim and that his actions are meant to destroy the nation. They cite Obamacare and his executive orders to improve the environment and cut global warming as examples of his duplicity. There is also the Republican Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell’s comment about his most important job being to assure that Obama was a one-term president, rather than cooperating with him on legislation for the good of the nation.

The refusal of the Senate to confirm Obama’s moderate nominee Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court is another illustration of the extreme partisanship that exists, even though previously Garland appeared quite acceptable to Senate Republicans. And the obstructionism will not stop if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. At least three Republican senators have already said that they will not confirm any of Clinton’s nominees to the Supreme Court before she has even mentioned any names. How can government function when the executive and legislative branches cannot work together because of hostility and partisanship? This was not the way democracy was envisioned when the Founding Fathers designed the structure of the government.

Thus, it is unlikely that America will change after this election is decided. America will continue to be the America it has been for the last several decades, which does not present a pretty picture to the world and is distressing to our youth. In fact, America is likely to become even worse in the short run. How does all the venom, hatred, misogyny, and racism that emerged during the campaign get put back into the bottle and tightly corked? That is not likely to happen. It will continue to spew out and splatter the citizens of this nation, engendering even more hostility and antagonism between political opponents and various groups.

The changing demographics and the emergence of new roles for women will eventually transform America but much pain and violence is likely to precede this evolution. Uneducated white men are threatened by the transformation and saw Trump as their standard-bearer. If he loses…..We can hope for peace and good will but the anger and feelings by some that their needs are being ignored and they are being left behind by government policies does not bode well for a tranquil transition and resolution of differences.

10/18/2016

Even before he has lost the election, Donald Trump is courting danger. Not for himself, but for America and for democracy. His statements that if he loses the election, it is because it was rigged and stolen by the Democrats and the liberal media have heightened the anger of his supporters. And Mike Pence, his VP candidate has gone along with Trump’s false assertions. At one of the Trump-Pence rallies, there were calls for a revolution if Hillary wins. America has never faced this kind of militant reaction from a major presidential candidate and his supporters in modern times. They refuse to accept the facts that the majority of voters do not appear to want Trump as their president.

And Trump is happy to stoke the anger of his supporters. His ranting and raving against “crooked Hillary” and his threats to throw her in jail if he is elected have energized his backers who believe this is a real possibility. The focus on Hillary’s private email server and her speeches to financial companies have tamped down the damage that Trump did to himself when the tapes were released showing him to be a sexual predator. And the Trump base has been willing to overlook or forgive his comments, accepting his excuse that it was just locker room talk. The fact that a number of women have reported Trump’s attacks on them have been dismissed as lies by Trump and believed as such by his supporters. To many of his backers, Trump can do no wrong and Hillary is characterized as the devil.

It is amazing that so many of his supporters see the election in blacks and whites, with Trump as the white knight riding in to save the country. His failure to pay taxes for years and his unwillingness to release his tax returns don’t bother his base. His failures as a businessman with his series of bankruptcies and screwing his investors, his contractors, and the small businesses that worked for him are passed off by his backers as media propaganda by liberal journalists who are out to get Trump. His supporters are unwilling to investigate the attacks on Trump for themselves, perhaps afraid they will discover that the denunciations of him are based on facts, and that Trump is truly a liar, manipulator, sexual predator, lousy businessman, and a fraudulent blowhard; a narcissistic autocrat who is a danger to American democracy.

America has a long history of conspiracy theories and political paranoia, rife in the 20th century. These included the John Birchers, Joe McCarthy and his anti-Communist witch hunts, the John Kennedy assassination and the refusal to believe it was done by Lee Harvey Oswald alone, the moon landing that some believe was faked, the supposed extra-terrestrials in Roswell, New Mexico, and so forth. Of course, they biggest one in the 21st century was the refusal by many to believe that Obama was born in America, was a Christian and not a Muslim. In fact, many Republicans still adhere to these beliefs, particularly the Trump supporters. So it is not surprising that his base is willing to believe that the election could be rigged and stolen from him. Over 40 percent of voters believe the election could indeed be fraudulent and fixed by Hillary and her “liberal” cohort.”

For years, Republican state legislatures have passed strict voter ID laws, claiming that it was necessary to prevent voter fraud. This is in spite of the fact that multiple studies have shown that voter fraud is virtually non-existent. In reality, these laws were passed to reduce minority voting with the GOP trying to make it harder for minorities to register. But with the idea of voter fraud already inculcated in the minds of Republicans, it was not a big step for the Trump backers to think that the entire election could be stolen. Of course, a central conspiracy to fix an American election would be impossible with the states and localities controlling the voting process.

According to Politico, Republican leaders are now trying to get Trump to stop claiming that the election will be rigged and stolen from him. They say unless he can show some proof, he should refrain from his assertions, as they could lead to more disrespect for the government, flouting of the laws, and even some violent reactions if Trump loses the election, which now seems likely. Will there be a rebellion in some areas of the country led by white supremacists. We’ll have to wait and see. But the anger Trump is stoking is certainly dangerous and a new low in American politics.

Trump doesn’t want to be branded “a loser” and will do anything he can to avoid being called that. He doesn’t care whether he might damage the nation and American democracy, ruining the image of America globally. For Trump, everything is done for Trump with no consideration of the repercussions.

10/10/2016

It’s somewhat unbelievable that with all Donald Trump has said and done, he is still supported by evangelical Christians, Mormons, and “family values” conservative Republicans. There is no excusing his conduct and actions over the years, but in politics, hypocrisy reigns, with his supporters ignoring his language and his behavior to continue to back him, even as new revelations are unearthed.

Many Republicans will vote for him simply because he is heading their ticket, and for them and many GOP politicians, the party is more important than the country. They are also afraid of Hillary and whom she might appoint to the Supreme Court and at least Trump seems to be thinking the right way now. But is he?

Remember, it was not too long ago that Trump favored abortion rights and same sex marriage, and donated to a number of Democratic candidates for office. He changed his tune when he realized he might have a chance to gain the Republican nomination for the presidency. But who can be certain he will not change his mind again in the future as he has done in the past. Trump does whatever is expedient and whatever benefits him, with no abiding principles that direct his actions. He is really not looking to make America great again as much as trying to make Trump great.

Trump is a braggart, serial philanderer, predator of women, inveterate liar, self-aggrandizing narcissist, irreligious blowhard, and a danger to America and the world if he should ever reach the presidency, having an explosive temperament and lack of control. He listens to no one because he knows more about everything than anyone else. The recent release of his comments that described his assaults on women where he was often successful, but never suffered any consequences because he was a star, should have his supporters running away from him. He feels a need to kiss attractive women and grab “pussy” when he has the urge. And this was said by him after only three months of marriage to his third wife. (Must make her feel pretty good, though she should have known what she was getting herself into.)

Do Republicans, evangelicals, and Mormons really want this man representing the nation in international forums and serving as a role model for their children? Does anyone in his or her right mind want him as president? His utterances, past and present behavior should immediately disqualify him for the presidency, independent of his lies, outbursts, and lack of emotional control.

This doesn’t even take into account his questionable success as a businessman where his taxes show that he lost nearly a billion dollars in one year and in all likelihood paid no taxes for years afterwards. Is that being a “smart businessman” as Trump says, or is it being a loser who was able to take advantage of the tax laws? Analyzing his business ventures over the years, it certainly appears that he has had many more failures than successes, stiffing small businessmen, contractors, and his investors if he felt it was necessary.

Instead of a blanket apology by Trump for the recent revelation of his sexual comments and predations, he remarked that it was locker room banter and that Bill Clinton has said even worse things on the golf course. Then he brought four women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault to the debate, to try and unnerve Hillary. This was typical Trump, trying to shift the blame and lacking understanding of the appalling nature of his statements. How do Melania and Trump’s children feel about The Donald since his past comments have become general knowledge? (Trump could do America a big favor by actually apologizing and dropping out of the presidential race, though it’s not likely to happen.)

It may be understandable that some uneducated poor white men idolize Trump, seeing his success with beautiful women, his apparent wealth, his jet plane, and fantasize about being in his shoes and having what he has, no matter how he got it. Just as there are women who are called “star f—kers,” there are men who are star worshippers. But can any American with a six grade education or more, religious individual, ethical or moral person rationalize their support of this unreconstructed braggart, liar, narcissist, sexual predator and philanderer?

06/22/2016

So now it’s come down to this. The Donald, who self-identifies himself as “really, really rich” and worth many billions of dollars, begging supporters and the Republican Party for cash. This Madoff-like con man has scammed his supporters and the GOP into believing his assertions of vast wealth and now the pigeons are coming home to roost. Didn’t The Donald once say that he was going to fund his whole campaign by himself? If you still believe he’s going to do that, I’ve got a bridge I’d love to sell you at a discounted price.

Currently, his campaign has $1.3 million available for advertising and to pay vendors and personnel, compared to Hillary’s $42 million. But don’t worry if you’re a Trump supporter. He’ll find a way to get by. In his past business ventures, Trump stiffed many of the small businessmen who provided him with supplies or worked for him. Either he didn’t pay them, or negotiated down what he owed them, paying cents on the dollar. If they weren’t happy, he threatened to take them to court, and the suit would cost them plenty even if they won. That was the way The Donald conducted business, riding roughshod over workers (many of whom were immigrants) and small companies that did not have the resources to fight him.

However, his tactics in real estate did not prevent him from bankruptcy on many occasions (which he says was a strategy of his), allowing him to get more loans from the banks who were afraid of losing out on their original loans. (This was bad judgement on the part of the lenders who wound up losing more in the long run.) Of course, the investors (other than the banks) who went into these ventures with The Donald, lost their shirts with the bankruptcies, though Trump was able to escape personal bankruptcy himself on these occasions. He didn’t care what happened to his partners, the banks, or the small businesses he hurt.

If The Donald is elected president, he says he will use some of these techniques to lower the debt load of the United States, threatening US bankruptcy and not paying the full value to those who bought US bonds. This would be disastrous for the nation and the world, destroying American credibility and the value of the dollar as an international currency. A global economic crisis would be precipitated. American debt has always been believed to be the most secure in the world and virtually risk-free. This benefits the United States as other countries have been willing to lend it money at absurdly low interest rates. Trump’s ploy would badly damage America’s credit rating and would end other nations buying of America’s bonds. The fact that Trump even suggested taking this path reveals his lack of knowledge regarding economics though he claims to be a smart businessman.

Interestingly, The Donald has been using campaign funds to pay himself, his family, and his own businesses, rather than paying for the campaign himself. His campaign paid over $400,000 to rent his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, which Trump should have just donated to his campaign if he’s as rich as he says he is. His campaign also spent nearly $400,000 on Trump’s jets which also should have been donated. In addition, according to the Federal Elections Commission, Trump’s campaign spent money at the Trump Plaza, Trump Soho, Trump Café, Trump Grill, and for Trump Wine, Trump Water, at Trump Golf Clubs, and so forth. Several payments went directly to The Donald as well. His campaign paid over $1.1 million in May to his businesses and family for various expenses they incurred. Does this sound like a rich man funding his own campaign?

And just a few days ago, The Donald put out an emergency appeal for $100,000 so he would be able to air some advertisements. If The Donald were worth the $10 billion he says he is, that would have been just a drop in the bucket for him and he would have come up with the money himself. It seems as if Trump is using his campaign as a business venture to generate money for himself, rather than spending it to fund his campaign. And so far, he has spent little on TV advertising or to set up campaign organizations in at least the battleground states, needed to collect data and conduct a ground game.

Almost certainly, Trump has lied about his net worth, with Forbes describing his claims of great wealth as fiction. This would appear to be the main reason he is refusing to release his tax returns as his income and assets would likely become public. He may also be avoiding paying taxes, not a good thing for a presidential candidate.

Look at some of The Donald’s other business ventures outside of real estate and casinos. United States Football League lasted three seasons in the 80s, then down the tubes. Trump University- defunct. A total scam on unsuspecting students. Trump Vitamins and the Trump Network- gone. Another scam. The Trump Shuttle- shut down with the loans defaulted. And so on. Analysts have said that given the inheritance Trump received from his father, he has greatly underperformed the real estate market over the last forty years and is in reality a mediocre businessman at best.

But The Donald has been able to deceive the public, his supporters, and the Republican Party. He appears to be trying to make a profit on running for president rather than winning the election. And all his talk about his wealth and how he would fund his campaign himself is all b.s, a major component of The Donald that people apparently cannot smell. Hopefully, he will not make it to the White House as he will probably start charging for tours and finding other ways to accumulate wealth through his new position.

Release your tax returns Donald if there’s any validity to what you’ve been telling Americans.

05/18/2016

In January 2016, Oxfam reported a major increase in global inequality, with just sixty-two people owning as much wealth as 3.5 billion people in the lower half of the world’s income scale. Inequality is inherent in capitalism, where those who are smarter or were born into the right family or work harder or take more risks can accumulate wealth and enjoy its benefits. Most people accept that individuals who have greater responsibility or perform at higher levels or are more valuable to society should receive more compensation than their peers. Yet there are limits to how much inequality is acceptable in any society. This is particularly so if some of the acquisition of wealth is perceived to have been accomplished in an inappropriate or immoral fashion. Some of the most affluent may also showcase their money in ways that provoke anger along with envy in those less fortunate. They may also use their money to buy political power, corrupting politicians and elected officials.

An important consideration in reducing inequality is how to curb generational conveyance of wealth. If this is not addressed, an increasing concentration of a nation’s (and the world’s) assets will be possessed by a smaller number of families, which can be passed on indefinitely and employed to amass power, either directly or indirectly. For democratic societies to survive and flourish, equality of opportunity and meritocracy must be maintained, rather than control of the state and its institutions by inherited wealth.

Over the last quarter-century, with marginal tax rates lowered, financial rewards from the performance of the American economy have gone disproportionately to the most affluent, while little has filtered down to the middle- and lower-income strata. The Walton family alone had more wealth than 42 percent of American families. Still, the American dream remains ingrained in society; that intelligence and individual effort can result in upward mobility and people can reach the top through hard work.

The continued growth of inequality has only accelerated since the recovery from the recession of 2007-2008. To some degree, uninformed citizens voting against their own interests played a role. Globalization, computerization, and the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs have also contributed. As noted in the Harvard Business Review, the huge rise in economic inequality has been the result of technological changes and political decisions including financial market reregulation, free trade, tax code changes, and various other policy choices.

Another factor often overlooked in burgeoning inequality has been assortive mating- the tendency for successful men and women to marry one another. Lawyers are more likely to marry other lawyers or other high-income professionals, as are physicians, business executives, and so forth. Thus, these families earn more and greater wealth is concentrated in their hands.

Currently, a small number of individuals control inordinate amounts of wealth in most democracies. In the United States, the ultra-rich 0.01% of the populace was reported to have 11.1% of the nation’s wealth in 2014, with the top 1% having 39.8% of the wealth, an astounding $32.6 trillion. These statistics do not consider assets held in offshore accounts which would skew the percentages even further. The upper 1 percent earns nearly a quarter of the nation’s income annually.

The richest 0.01% has quadrupled their share of America’s wealth since 1980, a time when they were already quite affluent. In fact, according to Forbes, the richest four hundred Americans alone were worth an unbelievable $2.29 trillion in 2013, increased by $270 billion from the previous year. To a major degree, government policy which voters have allowed has been responsible for the affluent being able to accumulate this immensely unequal share of assets, while the middle class has stagnated financially and poverty appears to be intractable. Income inequality in the U.S. is greater than in any other nation in the developed world by a large percentage. Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has said that “America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way.”

And wealth creates wealth. The more disposable income and excess capital an individual possesses, the more extra money he or she can accrue through investments. Then, that additional surplus money can be reinvested along with the original sums, creating greater and greater wealth for that person and his or her family. This is not necessarily bad for society, creating more businesses, jobs and so forth. But limits must somehow be set. To a certain degree in democracies, many of the ultra-rich have achieved the same status nobility were accorded in feudal societies, living in castles with servants and bodyguards, their every desire gratified.

Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in the 21st Century noted- “When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the 19th century and seems quite likely to do again in the 21st, capitalism generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. There are nevertheless ways democracy can regain control over capitalism and insure that the general interest takes precedence over private interests, while preserving economic openness and avoiding protectionist and nationalist reactions.” Thus, one of the major objectives of democratic societies must be achieving in a rational fashion the lessening of the concentration of wealth in only a few hands.

In 2005, the most affluent 300,000 Americans made as much as the bottom 150 million. The income gap was almost double that existing in 1980. The growth in income for top corporate executives and the excessive compensation going to investment bankers and financiers have been responsible for much of the inequality. A chief executive at one of the leading one hundred corporations in America in 1977 made about fifty times the pay of its average worker. Thirty years later, these CEOs made about 1100 times the wages of an average employee.

Though the financial industry, the energy sector, and high-tech companies, had the largest annual payouts for their officers, virtually all corporations have been rewarding their major executives with increasingly high salaries. But the financial industry provided the highest salaries by far. Wall Street pay broke a record in both 2009 and 2010 in spite of the damage these firms had done to the economy and the need for government bailouts. Financial firms in 1984 generated about one-seventh of the profits of all businesses in the US. By 2009, it was more than a quarter and had been as high as a third at the height of the boom in 2006.

While compensation for CEOs was once supposed to be tied to company performance, this idea has been mostly abandoned. In good times and bad times, executive compensation keeps rising, even while many of these corporations slash pensions and health care benefits, lay off workers, and sometimes flirt with bankruptcy.

Though there have always been differences in wealth and standards of living among US citizens, those who struggled were sustained with the belief that America was a meritocracy and that anyone could rise to the top. Whether this perception was valid does not matter, as it infused Americans with optimism about their ability to transcend origins and status to realize whatever their dreams might be. This is in the process of changing (aside from high-tech savants) as an aristocracy of wealth is developing, its members having the power and ability to shape the world to fit their needs and expectations. Whether a more equal distribution of wealth can ever be attained depends on the voters and who they choose to represent them.

05/11/2016

Was just getting accustomed to the idea that Donald Trump, aka The Donald, the motivating force behind the TV show The Apprentice, was going to be the Republican nominee for president, when the Quinipiac Poll had him and Hillary virtually tied in three swing states. He was slightly ahead in Ohio, while she was slightly ahead in Florida and Pennsylvania. But all the results were within the margin of error.

Can it really be that so many Americans are willing to support this blustering, blowhard, bully who appears to be ignorant of basic economics and foreign policy? Admittedly, Hillary is not a strong opponent, with a history of questionable ethical activities and some sloppiness in her emails. But she is like a Greek goddess and a paragon of virtue next to Donald Trump. An independent rater of the political content of the candidates’ important statements (Polifact) has Trump lying 76 percent of the time, with Hillary off base with 28 percent of her comments.

Trump’s lack of economic knowledge had him talking about negotiating a lower payout on America’s national debt, a move that would devastate the financial markets worldwide. Maybe that works when dealing with banks over loans for casinos, but America’s debt is felt to be the safest place to put money in the world, with the dollar as the prime international currency. America has always paid back 100 cents on the dollar on its debt and any change in this policy would ruin the nation’s financial credibility and probably spark a recession or depression. (The Donald is accustomed to bankruptcy as his businesses failed on four different occasions.)

Similarly, could Trump be serious about a 45 percent tariff on imported goods from China. That would initiate a trade war and would not bring manufacturing jobs back. Those jobs are gone forever, not because of China, but because of increases in manufacturing productivity. America’s manufacturing output is the highest it has ever been, even though manufacturing employment has dropped markedly. Factories are robotisized and computerized, with five workers doing the job that five hundred once did. Trump should know those manufacturing jobs are not returning, but has lied about it to get the backing of unemployed, or underemployed white workers who have dropped out of the middle class. He is not going to help them.

His foreign policy cred was shattered when he spoke about encouraging Korea and Japan to have their own nuclear arsenals, though he subsequently walked back on that idea. He also spoke of NATO as outmoded and perhaps unnecessary, when Russia has been becoming more of a threat to Eastern Europe and interfering in the Syrian conflict on the side of Assad. As commander-in-chief, his idea of using torture on terrorist captives was against international law and military law, and top military brass said they would refuse to follow those orders if they were given by Trump.

These are merely a few of the Trumpisms that show his ignorance of policy and his unpreparedness to be president of the United States. (This is disregarding his racism, white supremacist leanings and degradation of minorities.) Being president is not the same as a TV appearance or a real estate deal. But why do so many Americans support him, notwithstanding his lack of knowledge about fundamental issues.

A recent Pew Poll has suggested that Americans are more narcissistic in many ways than their European counterparts, just like The Donald. Americans believe that individuals are in control of their own destinies to a large degree. They are also generally more tolerant of offensive speech to religious minorities (77 percent say it’s okay), and The Donald offends repeatedly. Interestingly, most Americans think that having an affair is morally unacceptable (84 percent), which would seem to work against Trump but is excused by his supporters including evangelicals. Many U.S. voters also believe in American exceptionalism and Trump’s motto about making America great again has struck an emotional chord; national narcissism. Of course, other than bullying and bluster, he hasn’t laid out a course of how he’s going to make America great again (assuming that the country is not).

In addition, a lot of poor uneducated white men idolize Trump and perhaps fantasize about the life he has led. Plenty of money, his own jet plane, all the beautiful women he could possibly want, and now his run for the presidency. If he’s a narcissist and a braggart, perhaps he’s got a lot to brag about. Unfortunately, the media has sustained Trump and put him where he is to boost their ratings. Television has made him and the undiscerning American public has eaten it up. Narcissism and celebrity often go hand in hand and The Donald is the epitome of both, with all the characteristics of the ‘Ugly American.’ Do Americans really want him as their president, in the pantheon with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln?

04/21/2016

America was born as a republic, not a democracy, with only property-holding or tax-paying white males allowed to vote. Over time, Constitutional amendments extended the vote to black males and then to all women. But supposed universal suffrage did not make America a democracy. Its mistaken identity particularly stands out during this season of presidential primaries.

There is no mention of political parties or primaries in the Constitution. The way the primary system was set up during the last century to pick presidential candidates is anything but democratic. With its caucuses and primary voting to pick delegates, and the large number of super-delegates who may be party stalwarts but have not been chosen by the voters for their roles, the selection of presidential candidates is not driven by democratic processes. (Even The Donald, who now appears to be the GOP candidate, has complained about this.)While candidates in the past were decided by the party bosses, the current extended primary system now in use may not be any better.

And the Electoral College mechanism to choose the winning presidential candidate in the general election is also undemocratic. (Just ask Al Gore.) The winner does not have to have the majority of the popular vote as long as he or she has a majority of the Electoral College votes, by winning a combination of the right states. Is this democracy?

Consider the Senate where each state gets to elect two members of this august body. This means that California with a population of 37 million has the same power in the Senate as Wyoming with a population of less than 600,000. The structure of the Senate was established in the Constitution and was meant to be undemocratic, and it certainly is. In the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections, there were more votes for Democratic senators than for Republicans, though the GOP now has a majority in the Senate.

The House is dominated by conservative Republicans, many of whom were elected in districts gerrymandered by Republican state legislatures. The members of Congress from these districts have virtually safe seats because of the gerrymandering which does not follow natural boundary lines and stuffs Democratic voters into other districts where their votes are less meaningful. In 2012 Congressional elections, the Democratic Party nationally had a plurality of 1.4 million votes more than the Republicans. Yet the Republicans won 33 more seats in the House. This was the result of redistricting after the 2010 census. No surprise. It may not be fair and may not be democratic, but it’s American politics.

The Court system which is supposed to be independent of political parties has become increasingly politicized at all levels as evidenced by the Republican Senate’s refusal to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. Not democratic and not following precedent. The conservative Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizen’s United and the McCutcheon decisions also allowed big donors to put unlimited sums behind political candidates, using the idea that this was freedom of speech. Give me a break. This was done to help wealthy donors control the electoral process and elect more conservatives to office.

With the help of the court system, affluent Americans and corporate interests now control the Senate and the House and are going after the presidency. They also control the majority of state legislatures and governorships with the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council and dollars from conservative donors. Is it democracy in action when some Americans can give hundreds of millions of dollars to support their candidates and most Americans can only give hundreds (or even less). Money talks and big donors have loud voices. Also, in the 501 (c) 4 organizations, donors can give sums anonymously and perhaps take a tax deduction if it’s for a so-called “social welfare” cause.

Many of the state legislatures have also passed laws to restrict voting with certain IDs necessary in order to register. Numerous older people and minorities who wish to vote do not have the required IDs and have difficulty obtaining them, and thus cannot vote. Also ease of voting has been limited by having fewer places to vote and fewer days when voting is allowed, also making it more difficult for older people and minorities to vote. Is this democracy?

And why isn’t there a centrist third party in America? Most polls have about 40 percent of American self-labeling themselves as independents or centrists. But there is no party to represent them. The duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans has made it extremely difficult at the state level for a national third party to take root. So a large portion of citizens do not vote or vote for a party that’s the lesser of two evils because there’s no other choice. Is this democracy? Who says that America is a democracy?

01/20/2016

As an important election approaches, Americans should remember that the power in Washington and state capitals does not reside with elected officials alone. Like a cancer that has metastasized to all democratic nations, lobbyists use their influence and other people’s money to entice legislators, executives, and officeholders in different government agencies to make or interpret the laws in ways that will benefit them or their clients. Much of the corruption seen in democratic nations is the result of interactions between government personnel in positions of power and men and women with money and other favors to disburse who have gained access to them.

Who are these lobbyists that meddle in democratic proceedings and whose voices are heard above those of the electorate? Lobbyists are individuals who act as intermediaries for special interests or advocacy groups, attempting to influence legislation and executive actions, or win government contracts. They are often former members of congress, senators, or staff members, high level employees of government agencies or departments, or retired military personnel. Because of their previous positions, they have access to legislators who are writing laws and to members of the executive branch or top military officers who can make important decisions.

Special interests include a multitude of corporations seeking government contracts for products or services, government subsidies or special tax breaks, protection from foreign competitors through tariffs or import restrictions, or the waiving of environmental regulations. Unions and labor groups are special interests that want to maintain or raise wages, or want protection from low wage workers abroad. Farmers may want subsidies for their crops or protection from imports. Cities, states and counties, foreign governments, social and religious advocacy groups, health organizations, environmental groups, the National Rifle Association and gun control groups, and countless others also act as special interest groups. All of these entities try to promote their own concerns and values, over and above those of the general public.

Members of Congress, senators, and legislators feel indebted to those who contribute to their campaign funds or raise money for them. Anyone or any group that provides significant aid gets access to the official, and perhaps that lawmaker’s willingness to craft legislation that benefits that person or group. Or perhaps a willingness to block other legislation perceived as harmful. This quid pro quo makes legislators resistant to meaningful campaign finance reform, which along with lobbying reform could change the political structure now in place. Aside from the campaign help, many politicians and their staffers also accept personal blandishments from lobbyists, such as trips, dinners, and direct financial rewards (supposedly prohibited), or the promise of plush jobs in the future. And the task of addressing the nation’s real problems, making hard choices and confronting divisive questions goes undone.

The list of government officials who have subsequently become lobbyists is extensive. Many appear to have been rewarded for work performed while in government that benefited special interests, while others were hired for their potential clout in future dealings with government agencies. A prime example of the first scenario is former Republican Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who helped shepherd the Medicare prescription drug bill through Congress in 2003. He retired soon afterwards and became president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the drug industry lobby, where he was able to command millions in salary and benefits. An example of the second is conservative Republican John Ashcroft, who had been a senator from Missouri and attorney general for President Bush. Upon leaving the government, he started a lobbying firm in the fall of 2005, quickly establishing a stable of prominent clients. Though Ashcroft had been head of the Justice Department a short time earlier, his firm represented Oracle in its attempts to persuade the Justice Department there were no anti-trust implications in a billion dollar acquisition it was pursuing. Needless to say, Oracle was successful and Ashcroft received $220,000 for his work.

Over 2200 former federal employees registered as lobbyists from 1998 to 2004, including 273 previous members of the White House staff and almost 250 members of Congress and heads of federal agencies. During this period, 50% of senators and 42% of congressmen who left office became lobbyists, 52% of departing Republicans and 33% of the Democrats. Total spending by lobbyists which was $1.44 billion in 1997, grew to $2.38 billion in 2005 according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In 2009, according to the Senate Office of Public Records, the top twenty industries alone spent $2.22 billion on lobbying. The 2010 mid-term elections saw the lion’s share of funding disbursed by special interests and lobbyists go to the Republicans who were perceived as the probable victors. The amounts given increased significantly, the result of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court earlier in 2010 that struck down the limitations on corporate spending for political campaigns. By 2014, the number of lobbyists had grown to almost 12,000 individuals and the total spent on lobbying was over $3.2 billion. While not all politicians are intimately tied to lobbyists and special interests, the vast majority are, and even the most righteous have to cooperate to some degree if they want to get re-elected.

Though the rules and permissible conduct may vary from country to country, lobbying occurs universally in democratic nations, as the affluent, businesses, and special interests try to interact with politicians and officials to derive the advantages that government can provide. Lobbyists at times can also be helpful in conveying information to legislators or officials of which they may not be aware, particularly when they are new to their positions. However, lobbyists have been known to write the bills that legislators have presented to Congress or state bodies, or regulations that officials put into effect that bolster specific interests. Lobbyists and government officials too often ignore the ethical boundaries that should separate them when both can benefit greatly from the interactions between them, and what each side has to offer the other. But how can meaningful reform be effected?

09/02/2015

While “The Donald” cannot exactly be equated with Hitler, to make an impact in his campaign for president among citizens who distrust government officials and politicians, he is using many of the techniques that the Fuhrer employed to gain the support of the German people. In Trump’s attempt to attract Americans to his banner, he is demonizing a minority and emphasizing nationalist and populist slogans along with his ability to improve the economy. The angry rants of this demagogue do not contain policy prescriptions that can be analyzed, just his claims that he knows how to get things done.

Instead of blaming the Jews as Hitler did for all of Germany’s problems, Trump is indicting Mexicans and Hispanics for many of America’s problems. He has called them rapists and criminals, though in actuality the crime rates among undocumented immigrants appears to be lower than the American population at large. Crimes by immigrants that have garnered publicity have been used by Trump as proof of his thesis, though individual cases mean nothing. (Trump has also claimed that the Mexican government is responsible for sending their criminals across the border.)

In spite of Trump asserting that Hispanics are taking good jobs away from Americans while hurting the Social Security system, the opposite is really true. Most of the jobs employing Hispanics are low-paying and back-breaking, and not the type of work Americans relish. And many hard-working Hispanics pay into the Social Security system and never receive its benefits, bolstering its finances. (Recent studies have actually shown more Mexicans voluntarily leaving the U.S. than entering.)

Trump has not suggested killing Hispanics or sending them to concentration camps, but wants to deport eleven million of these undocumented immigrants to their countries of origin. Economically, this would be disastrous for America. In addition to spending billions of dollars to round up all of these immigrants, imprison them temporarily and send them home, the agricultural sector, hospitality and fast food industries would be devastated. Construction and landscaping would also be badly hurt. And Trump’s notion of repealing the XIV Amendment to the Constitution, to allow the deportation of “anchor babies” and people born in the United States who are automatically considered citizens, is pure garbage. He knows that an amendment to that effect could never pass.

Building a wall on the border with Mexico to keep out new immigrants and making Mexico pay for it is also a pipedream. The whole concept is ludicrous, trying to force one of our major trading partners to pay billions for a wall that does not benefit them and that they despise. (Besides, a border wall of sorts is already in place.) Mesmerized by his rhetoric, Trump’s adherents may love his ideas, but he’s living in another world.

His slogan of “Make America Great Again” is an emotional appeal to nationalist sentiment, just as Hitler propagated in his talk of the “thousand year Reich” and the way Germany would dominate Europe and the world. Trump claims that only he can stand up to other world leaders, like Xe of China, Putin of Russia, and Khomeini of Iran, who perceive America as weak and are taking advantage of that weakness. To defeat ISIS he wants to go into Iraq again and grab their oil to destroy ISIS’s finances. That means another war in the Middle East, and where it will stop, nobody knows. Does he take on Putin in the Ukraine?

Trump sees himself as the proverbial strongman who will save the United States from its enemies as Hitler did for Germany. To show his strength, the demagogue draws large crowds and entrances them with his fiery speeches, with tales of his own greatness and his vision for America. He regales them with his wonderful achievements in the construction business that has prepared him to transform the nation. The economy is in trouble and he will fix it, putting China in its place along with Mexico.

At Trump’s rallies in the South, shouts of “white power” can be heard and Trump has been endorsed by the racist, former Grand Dragon of the KKK, David Duke. He has also received backing from the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi, white nationalist rag. And in Boston recently, two white men badly beat a homeless Hispanic man, excusing their actions to the police because all illegals should be deported as Donald Trump has said he would do.

Unfortunately, along with his 25 percent or so support of Republicans, Trump has received reinforcement for his egocentric pursuit of the presidency by the large turnouts at his rallies. His supporters see him as the anti-politician, willing to say anything that comes into his mind instead of depending on polls for advice. And with his own money supply, he doesn’t need Super PACs and doesn’t have to listen to lobbyists. In fact, he doesn’t have to listen to anyone, or take advice from anyone, because he knows it all. America may not want a politician for president, but do they want an inexperienced demagogue?